Candidates, nominees from president republican president s have learned a lot about how to deal with the hearings. When you heard kavanaugh say as he did, talking about the parties to the case that theyre Flesh And Blood Human Beings and we need to have empathy for them and real world consequences of the court are very important. As a political matter, great stuff. A legal matter, its nonsense. Were youre an Appellate Judge and an issue comes before you, the issue is not the parties. Youre to resolve the legal issues. Its a purely legal matter. The parties may happen to be the case that they pick to do that. Now, obviously its as well as a human being to say you care about the parties, yes, you should, but thats smart to say that. Bork said when he was asked about why he wanted to be on the court back then, he said among other things, he said it was an intellectual feast. His critics got all over that. To him its a theoretical matter
kavanaugh. One is cory booker and kamala harris. No
precedent. as a lower court judge, i was bound to apply it. it was in the brown and williamson decision. in the god father of the major rules or major questions doctrine is justice brier that wrote about it in the 1980s as a way to apply chevron. the supreme court adopted that in the brown and williamson case, applied it in the uarg case, the one you referenced justice scalia s opinion. what that opinion says is it s okay for congress to delegate various matters to the executive agencies to do rules, but on major questions of major economic or social significance, we expect congress to speak clearly already such a delegation. that had not happened in my view with respect to net neutrality. i felt bound by precedent and therefore to apply the may the minor rules would be okay but not major. in a decision you say you ll know the difference when you see it. that s why the other judges on
the court from appointed by both parties went with the traditional view of how to look at this. you used the 1986 law review article by justin brier and from the king v. burrwell case in 2015. what i m showing to show is this pattern to say, oh, congress should step in and do everything. you re stepping in in these cases. i would say it s a pattern of adhering to precedent. it seems to precedent when you look at chevron and i know the white house touted the fact that you overruled the federal agency action 75 times. and they said that you lead the effort to reign in executive agencies in the press release when you were announced. what does that mean, how you let the effort? i don t know. i don t know what that is referring to. i know my record. i m sure i upheld agency decisions dozens and dozens and
courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. the whole question of ambiguity, how much is enough. i wrote a law review article in the harvard law review about that problem of judges disagreeing about ambiguity and how much is enough. i also said that chevron serves get purposes in cases where it s an overlap with the state farm doctrine. statutory terms like feasible or reasonable are terms of discretion that are granted to agencies. the court should be careful not to second guess agencies. i ve written an person where i made it clear the court should be unduly second guessing agencies. i want to move to campaign finance. those were the documents that i received and were able too make